From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3rw5Sp5nZ3zDqSQ for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:46:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u6L7iNJE044011 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:46:32 -0400 Received: from e18.ny.us.ibm.com (e18.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.208]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 24aeh4vdwr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:46:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by e18.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 03:46:31 -0400 From: Pan Xinhui To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, kernellwp@gmail.com, jgross@suse.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, Pan Xinhui Subject: [PATCH v3 2/4] powerpc/spinlock: support vcpu preempted check Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:45:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1469101514-49475-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1469101514-49475-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-Id: <1469101514-49475-3-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It takes the cpu as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break the spin loops upon the retval of vcpu_is_preempted(). As kernel has used this interface, So lets support it. Only pSeries need support it. And the fact is powerNV are built into same kernel image with pSeries. So we need return false if we are runnig as powerNV. The another fact is that lppaca->yield_count keeps zero on powerNV. So we can just skip the machine type check. Suggested-by: Boqun Feng Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h index 523673d..3ac9fcb 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h @@ -52,6 +52,24 @@ #define SYNC_IO #endif +/* + * This support kernel to check if one cpu is preempted or not. + * Then we can fix some lock holder preemption issue. + */ +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES +#define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted +static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) +{ + /* + * pSeries and powerNV can be built into same kernel image. In + * principle we need return false directly if we are running as + * powerNV. However the yield_count is always zero on powerNV, So + * skip such machine type check + */ + return !!(be32_to_cpu(lppaca_of(cpu).yield_count) & 1); +} +#endif + static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock) { return lock.slock == 0; -- 2.4.11